2021
DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2021.785260
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Connectivity Patterns for Direct Developing Invertebrates in Fragmented Marine Habitats: Fish Farms Fouling as Source Population in the Establishment and Maintenance of Local Metapopulations

Abstract: Artificial structures can be considered as high spatially structured habitats in the marine pelagic system, where patch connectivity would be strongly dependent on the exchange of larvae or dispersing individuals. Fish-farms located offshore may alter ecological connectivity, modifying trophic resources, and species dispersal among patches. High population densities of invertebrates can be found associated with fish-farm fouling communities, which can act as a seed source, contributing to the patterns of conne… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 47 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Panels deployed at the estuarine site, near the oyster farm, with longer immersion times (S1), had the highest fouling load over the study period (WW= 80 ± 36 g), while at the other sites, fouling biomasses were about half of that value (S2: 39 ± 22 g; S3: 39 ± 21 g; and S4: 38 ± 30 g) (Figure 4). This pattern is consistent with previous reports showing that continuously submerged structures at or near aquaculture farms typically exhibit greater biofouling biomass than sites distant from aquaculture activity, probably due to the enhanced food supply associated with mariculture (Cook et al, 2006;Fernandez-Gonzalez et al, 2021).…”
Section: Biofouling Biomass and Mesh Occlusionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Panels deployed at the estuarine site, near the oyster farm, with longer immersion times (S1), had the highest fouling load over the study period (WW= 80 ± 36 g), while at the other sites, fouling biomasses were about half of that value (S2: 39 ± 22 g; S3: 39 ± 21 g; and S4: 38 ± 30 g) (Figure 4). This pattern is consistent with previous reports showing that continuously submerged structures at or near aquaculture farms typically exhibit greater biofouling biomass than sites distant from aquaculture activity, probably due to the enhanced food supply associated with mariculture (Cook et al, 2006;Fernandez-Gonzalez et al, 2021).…”
Section: Biofouling Biomass and Mesh Occlusionsupporting
confidence: 92%